Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Mr R M Patil vs State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|28 May, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.2493/2019 BETWEEN:
Mr. R.M.Patil S/o Mahabalesh Gowda, Aged about 25 years, R/o. Hiremyagalagere Village, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District – 583125. ... Petitioner (By Sri Ravindra D.K., Advocate a/w Sri Rahamathulla Kothwal, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, Rep. by Geologist, Office of Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, Davanagere, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri S. Rachaiah, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in C.C.No.46/2019 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC., Harapanahalli for the offences P/U/S 4(1) and 4(1A) of M.M.R.D. Act and Rules 3(1) and 42(1) of K.M.M.C. Rules.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner, who is stated to be a lease holder and authorized in carrying out quarrying has filed the present petition seeking for relief in the nature of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code in the event of his arrest in C.C.No.46/2019 for the offences punishable under Rules 3(1), 42(1) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and under Sections 4(1A) and 4(1-A) of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957, which is pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Harapanahalli.
2. The petitioner states that the complainant Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology had filed PCR No.73/2018 for the offences above mentioned and cognizance has been taken. The petitioner states that he has a lease but he is in possession of permission in the form of quarrying lease. Copy of which is produced at Annexure-D with respect to quarrying in Sy.No.1/C of Ucchangidurga Village, Harapanahalli Taluk. The petitioner further states that he has obtained a licence for establishing a stone crusher unit. Copy of the said licence is produced at Annexure-E. The petitioner states that it is only under mistaken assumption that the petitioner is carrying an illegal stone quarrying activity in the neighbouring land that the present proceedings have been initiated.
3. The matter as to whether the petitioner is carrying any illegal stone quarrying activity in a land beyond which he has been granted permission is a matter for investigation and subject to proof.
4. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner is a well established businessman having standing in the society and taking note of the fact that he has already obtained quarrying licence and also permission to set up stone crusher unit. It would be appropriate to grant relief to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in connection with the investigation process relating to C.C.No.46/2019.
5. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer in connection with C.C.No.46/2019 within 20 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and he shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
(b) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation of the case.
(c) The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so far as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer.
(d) The petitioner shall not hamper the investigation.
(e) The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth.
(f) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the concerned SHO once in fortnight between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., for a period of three months or till the charge sheet is filed.
Sd/- JUDGE SJK
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Mr R M Patil vs State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
28 May, 2019
Judges
  • S Sunil Dutt Yadav